For Bitcoin, the quantum computing issue is no longer just a remote technical scenario. It is becoming an economic variable: if the market begins to doubt the network's ability to upgrade its defenses within a credible timeframe, the cost could materialize before any actual attack occurs. This is the perspective offered by Muneeb Ali, founder of the layer 2 project Stacks, who argues that the lack of a convincing roadmap toward quantum resistance already risks dampening part of institutional interest.
His argument should be taken for what it is: the stance of an industry insider, rather than proof that Bitcoin is currently vulnerable to a quantum computer. The financial point, however, is more immediate than the technology. Bitcoin has been purchased by many professional investors partly as a potential hedge against currency debasement and monetary expansion. From this perspective, long-term reliability matters just as much as the asset's programmed scarcity. Uncertainty over future security can therefore alter the appetite to hold BTC, risk assessments, and investment horizons, without waiting for the threat to materialize.
The issue emerges as US spot Bitcoin ETFs have amassed over 104 billion dollars in net assets, according to data cited by BitBo. The growth of these instruments has made Bitcoin exposure more accessible to asset managers, advisors, and investors operating through traditional financial channels. At the same time, it has raised the bar on the factors the market must weigh: not just flows, volatility, and regulatory frameworks, but also the infrastructure's ability to maintain its security guarantees over time.
The deadline is not technical on paper alone
Ali points to 2028 as a milestone by which Bitcoin should show substantial progress, and 2030 as the horizon to complete the transition to quantum-resistant systems. The reference is to guidelines from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), while the acceleration in the development of artificial intelligence could, according to Ali, further shorten the expected timeline. Not all industry operators share the urgency of this forecast; indeed, the level of maturity required for quantum computing to compromise Bitcoin remains a subject of debate.
What makes the issue delicate is the network's governance mechanism. Even if developers and the community were to converge on a solution, implementation would take time. Bitcoin has a history of cautious, often protracted and contentious upgrades. Following the adoption of the changes, holders would also need to transfer their funds to addresses compatible with the new protections. The transition, therefore, does not rely solely on software modifications: it requires coordination, operational compatibility, and the participation of those holding coins, from major intermediaries to individual users.
For markets, this creates execution risk. One does not need to assume an attack is imminent to recognize that an uncertain trajectory can factor into valuation models. Institutional investors also operate across multi-year horizons, considering position liquidity and the predictability of rules. A verifiable plan, with shared milestones and solutions, could reduce the risk premium associated with the quantum scenario. Conversely, delays, divisions, or contradictory guidance would provide ammunition to those who view Bitcoin as an exposure difficult to hold in long-term portfolios.
The implications would not end with BTC. Ali argues that any quantum breakthrough capable of bypassing Bitcoin's protections would have fallout for the entire cryptocurrency market. For now, however, the most concrete consequence is reputational and financial: the industry must prove it can plan a complex upgrade before an emergency forces rushed decisions.
Ripple enters the federal banking perimeter
Against the same backdrop of industry maturation, Ripple has secured final approval from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to charter a national trust bank in the United States. The green light concludes the process that began with conditional approval received in December 2025 and leads to the creation of Ripple National Trust Bank, subject to federal oversight.
The new entity will be tasked with managing the reserves backing the RLUSD stablecoin, acting as collateral trustee for token holders, and offering custody services for digital assets. However, the issuance of RLUSD will remain with Standard Custody Trust Company, regulated by the New York Department of Financial Services. The distinction matters because it separates operational and regulatory roles within the Ripple ecosystem.
A national trust bank is not equivalent to a traditional commercial bank. It generally cannot accept deposits or issue loans, and it lacks Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation coverage. It is therefore a license focused on custody and fiduciary functions, but with significant industrial value: it allows Ripple to place part of its operations within a federal perimeter, just as stablecoins seek greater legitimacy in payments and reserve management.
Ripple is not the only crypto company to have taken this path. Circle obtained final approval in July, while Coinbase, Crypto.com, and Bridge, owned by Stripe, were still at the conditional approval stage. Competition, therefore, is not only about market share for dollar-pegged tokens: it also hinges on the ability to build regulated frameworks for custody, reserves, and safeguards for users.
In Europe, MiCA reshapes stablecoin liquidity
The regulatory shift is already visible in the European market. According to a Kaiko report, USDC has surpassed Tether's USDt in trading against the euro: it now accounts for 56% of stablecoin trading denominated in the single currency, compared to 10% recorded in January 2024. The reversal was driven by restrictions imposed by major exchanges on USDt trading for European Economic Area clients, as part of efforts to comply with the Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation, known as MiCA.
Furthermore, USDC's euro order books are roughly 40% deeper than those of USDt, a sign of greater liquidity available to traders in that market. This does not challenge the global primacy of USDT, which continues to be the dominant stablecoin internationally. However, it shows how local regulations can swiftly shift the balance within individual trading corridors, rewarding issuers and platforms capable of adapting to the required standards.
For European banks, payment operators, and investors, the takeaway is tangible: regulatory compliance is not an optional extra, but a condition that directly impacts liquidity, market access, and the choice of instruments. For Bitcoin, the quantum issue poses a different yet parallel question. In the former case, the European market is already translating rules into trading market shares; in the latter, investors could begin pricing in the uncertainty of an upgrade that remains to be defined.
Meanwhile, VanEck has added Bitcoin to a new ETF, providing yet another signal of the asset's presence within regulated financial products. It is precisely this growing integration that makes these open questions less marginal: the crypto industry is evaluated not only on the innovation it promises, but on the robustness with which it manages technological risks, reserves, and market rules.
